I'm not an Apple fan, and I do use Linux on my laptop (Windows 7 on my desktop), but I think this guy's had it all wrong. Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple. There's a place for Apple and there's a place for free stuff such as Linux (and a place for Windows too!). Apple products are pricey, there's no arguing that, but they also work out of the box. Linux and other free software are, well, free, but you also have to live with the fact that there's a higher chance that they're buggy and are usually more suited for techy people. You could say that Linux/other free stuff work well, but the fact remains that they don't enjoy the same level of in-house testing and debugging that only a commercial organization can provide through proper, systematic internal funding and management. Remember, no Linux community member can possibly dedicate all his time to debugging Linux or free stuff. He has a day job, after all. Those working for Apple, however, do nothing but work on their products day after day.

Both Apple and free software have their merits and drawbacks, but to publicly state that Apple is a cool jail is just trolling on this Stallman guy's part.

If you ask me, this guy's the computer world's equivalent of Bin Laden. He has his followers (who knows, some may even be ok to die for their cause), but he sure is an extremist. And statements like these from him or from others dedicated to their cause only serve to tarnish the free software community's image.

How is Apple not a cool jail? That's not trolling - that's telling it like it is.

"If you ask me, this guy's the computer world's equivalent of Bin Laden." Of course, he's a CIA trained extremist with bags of money whose family has been completely shielded from his wrongdoing and their wrongdoings in the BCCI scandal etc.

Yup, he's exactly like that. Rabid off topic comment for the win there ronch. If *you* see him as a terrorist - that's just you.

I have nothing against humanity that thousands of years of nuclear winter won't take care of.

How is Apple not a cool jail? That's not trolling - that's telling it like it is.

Saying that Apple is a jail is like saying Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are all jails, developing the hardware and granting licenses to anyone who wants to create software for their game consoles. A jail is a place where you don't have freedom whatsoever. A place of difficulty, punishment, and suffering. With Apple, no one is forcing you to buy their stuff, the same way no one forces you to buy Microsoft Office if you buy a PC. It's up to you. In fact, I see a lot of people being happy with their Apple products. How is that a cool jail? It's their money. They spent it freely to buy Apple stuff and they're happy with it because it just works. In fact, they wouldn't have become Apple fanboys if their experience with Apple products was bad. Again, how is that a cool jail?

Yup, he's exactly like that. Rabid off topic comment for the win there ronch. If *you* see him as a terrorist - that's just you.

Funny how you jump to thinking that I'm saying he's a terrorist. A bit hasty, aren't we? No, you have it all wrong too. How would you think of someone who, upon hearing another person's misfortune, says he's glad that misfortune has befallen that other person? That's exactly what Bin Laden does. He may not be the one behind some attacks, but he says he's not sorry those attacks happened. See the parallelism?

A walled garden is a jail and if rms were concerned about games consoles you'd have a point - but he isn't. Those ecosystems are also closed by default. The fact that you are willfully and deliberately refusing to see that Apple is a more closed ecosystem than for example Windows - or more perfectly, open source OSes - is due to your own bias - not due to empirical facts. Apple limits what you can do with the hardware _you bought_ and therefore is *yours* as well as locking you in to their software underscores this.

Clearly you did not read what rms wrote. He did not say he was glad Steve was dead and in fact wished it upon no one - go re-read the article. He is glad that Steve's undue influence is gone - period. I don't know how anyone could miss that since it's right there in black and white.

"How would you like to be the one in Steve's place and someone says something like what Stallman said? Is that a good thing to say? Is that a good mentality to have?"

And if I was as ego-driven, non-philanthropic, and profit motivated as Steve was I wouldn't give a **** - first because I'm dead and second because "what do I care - he's a broke ass crank trying to change the world while I **** own it". Steve was a guy who donated nothing to charity and repeatedly parked his car sideways in the handicapped spots at Apple. He cared what other people thought of him not one iota - particularly those that weren't buying his stuff.

I have nothing against humanity that thousands of years of nuclear winter won't take care of.

You know, in Korea, even if a person was your enemy, it's customary and common practice to still attend his wake and pay your respects to that person when he/she passes away. All the person's dishonorable acts are forgiven. Very honorable, I might add.

Clearly, you and your uncle Richard are not Korean, nor do you share their way of honoring those who have gone ahead of us.

I'm not an Apple fan, and I do use Linux on my laptop (Windows 7 on my desktop), but I think this guy's had it all wrong. Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple. There's a place for Apple and there's a place for free stuff such as Linux (and a place for Windows too!). Apple products are pricey, there's no arguing that, but they also work out of the box.

Up to this point, I agree with you; Stallman is pretty far out there. If you're not familiar with him, this is typical.

I give the guy a lot of credit for spearheading the Open Source movement; without him it would've probably never gotten off the ground. But his militant evangelism of Free Software also turns a lot of people off; at this point I believe he is more of a liability than an asset to the Open Source movement.

ronch wrote:Linux and other free software are, well, free, but you also have to live with the fact that there's a higher chance that they're buggy

This, however, I disagree with; it sounds like you've been unquestioningly accepting the spew that comes out of Microsoft's FUD machine. Conservative distros like Debian are *very* stable. More stable than Windows.

Yes, if you run the latest bleeding edge Fedora or Ubuntu release you're probably going to hit some bumps in the road. That's the price of using what's essentially a rolling beta.

ronch wrote:and are usually more suited for techy people.

Again, only partly true, and much less true today than it was 10 (or even 3) years ago.

Furthermore, Linux (and other Open Source software) has become quite ubiquitous in embedded and handheld devices. Millions of non-techy people use it every day, probably without realizing it.

ronch wrote:You could say that Linux/other free stuff work well, but the fact remains that they don't enjoy the same level of in-house testing and debugging that only a commercial organization can provide through proper, systematic internal funding and management. Remember, no Linux community member can possibly dedicate all his time to debugging Linux or free stuff. He has a day job, after all. Those working for Apple, however, do nothing but work on their products day after day.

Again, only half true. While many of the smaller Open Source projects are indeed part-time projects for people who do something else as their day job, most of the prominent ones have singificant corporate backing, and testing/release procedures which are probably better than many commercial software vendors.

You also need to take into account the fact that the volunteers who are doing it in their free time are doing it because they are genuinely interested/excited about the product, *want* to work on it, and *want* to see it succeed. Would you rather have that, or some coder or tester working in a cubicle farm who doesn't give crap about the quality of the product, and is just doing it to earn a paycheck?

TBH I have "WTF, how did this ever make it out the door?!??" experiences about equally with both commercial and Free software.

ronch wrote:Both Apple and free software have their merits and drawbacks, but to publicly state that Apple is a cool jail is just trolling on this Stallman guy's part.

If you ask me, this guy's the computer world's equivalent of Bin Laden. He has his followers (who knows, some may even be ok to die for their cause), but he sure is an extremist. And statements like these from him or from others dedicated to their cause only serve to tarnish the free software community's image.

While the Bin Laden reference is little more than trolling on *your* part, I do agree that Free / Open Source Software does still have a bit of an image problem, and Stallman is a contributing factor.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

I'm not defending him, I'm defending (if you can really call it that) his point.

That without the rdf - the hope is that the appeal of walled gardens will lessen. Steve's charisma and p.r. acumen was really a driving force of that. That doesn't mean that I'm waiting with bated breath for a functional GNU/Hurd. Anything that is ultimately disadvantageous to consumers (and the world at large) is a negative. Do people buy things that are ultimately bad for them *largely due to marketing*? All the time.

If your point is that he could have put it better - you're probably right. But then he wouldn't be rms - and he wouldn't be getting the press (and zdnet wouldn't have columnists writing idiotic things). What he's expressing is hope - of a sort.

Steve did plenty of messed up things in his lifetime but rms is certainly not having a party over the man's grave.

Hopefully that all made sense - I'm way past my bed time.

I have nothing against humanity that thousands of years of nuclear winter won't take care of.

JBI wrote:Furthermore, Linux (and other Open Source software) has become quite ubiquitous in embedded and handheld devices. Millions of non-techy people use it every day, probably without realizing it.

Indeed. This is probably why Stallman said what he did.

The innards of MacOS stem from the UNIX heritage and are open source. Darwin however, is not what people care about when they buy an Apple laptop or build a hackintosh. What people care about is the non-free, non-open layer built over it.

In other words, it's not just that people like cool jails, but that *nix open source software has helped to better build them.

BTW Cheesy, I JUST watched Dead Alive (well I got halfway through it last night, have to finish it up today). Hands down the funniest zombie movie I've ever seen. Super butt puckering as well. So many moments where I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, puke or close my eyes. Usually its a combination of the four.

Everyone has their own puddles of little or no compromise, and software freedom happens to be Stallman's. The real distasteful thing here is the attitude and motivation of the journalist, promoting the idea that the soapbox belongs to those willing to join the chorus of adoration toward the recently departed, while anyone with anything more than token criticism to offer should censor themselves rather than speak the truth as they see it.

In any case, it was disingenuous for the journalist paint it as though Stallman was going out of his way to exploit the news. Look at the page the journalist quoted from - the bit about Jobs was a brief statement of opinion said in passing among prolific news commentary. Not to mention it's quite an ironic accusation coming from one of the many news organisations that milk these events for all they're worth.

shaq_mobile wrote:BTW Cheesy, I JUST watched Dead Alive (well I got halfway through it last night, have to finish it up today). Hands down the funniest zombie movie I've ever seen. Super butt puckering as well. So many moments where I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, puke or close my eyes. Usually its a combination of the four.

shaq_mobile wrote:BTW Cheesy, I JUST watched Dead Alive (well I got halfway through it last night, have to finish it up today). Hands down the funniest zombie movie I've ever seen. Super butt puckering as well. So many moments where I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, puke or close my eyes. Usually its a combination of the four.

Rich and creamy, just the way I like it!

/me retches

I'm not that squeamish but I almost threw up. I don't know how that actor did it. I would have hurled.

ronch wrote:I'm not an Apple fan, and I do use Linux on my laptop (Windows 7 on my desktop), but I think this guy's had it all wrong. Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple. There's a place for Apple and there's a place for free stuff such as Linux (and a place for Windows too!). Apple products are pricey, there's no arguing that, but they also work out of the box.

Fedora works out of the box for me without any problems. I've had more problems integrating OS X into the network then Windows or Linux.

Linux and other free software are, well, free, but you also have to live with the fact that there's a higher chance that they're buggy and are usually more suited for techy people. You could say that Linux/other free stuff work well, but the fact remains that they don't enjoy the same level of in-house testing and debugging that only a commercial organization can provide through proper, systematic internal funding and management. Remember, no Linux community member can possibly dedicate all his time to debugging Linux or free stuff. He has a day job, after all. Those working for Apple, however, do nothing but work on their products day after day.

Red Hat, Canonical, and Suse will sell you support licenses. They are also commercial organizations that employ developers/community members to dedicate all of their time to debugging Linux and free stuff. Most Linux, and free stuff, code comes from businesses who pay developers for their work. The whole lone hacker mythos hasn't been a reality for at least a decade. They aren't any different then Apple, except they believe in open systems, free software, freedom of choice, and they aren't trying to cash in on a buzzword. Ok, so they may be totally different from Apple.

Both Apple and free software have their merits and drawbacks, but to publicly state that Apple is a cool jail is just trolling on this Stallman guy's part.

If you ask me, this guy's the computer world's equivalent of Bin Laden. He has his followers (who knows, some may even be ok to die for their cause), but he sure is an extremist. And statements like these from him or from others dedicated to their cause only serve to tarnish the free software community's image.

Stallman is correct. Apple is throwback to when software was the fudge and cherry of the banana split and hardware was the ice cream and banana. The core Apple belief is one of vendor lock in. This creates a very well manicured lawn, but it also limits you to Apple's tyrannical vision of the world.

Stallman is an extremist, and he's inflammatory and inarticulate. He's the anti-Jobs, really. He's crass, and I can't stand him. But, he keeps the FOSS movement on course. Every movement needs their extremists, or they risk losing their way. Every movement needs moderates as well, but moderates compromise. Moderates compromise because they want to be accepted by the mainstream. Their moral compass waivers, and those small waivers can turn into large digressions of course later on. In summery, you can't build a house on sand and expect it to last.

Also, Jobs was the computer equivalent of Bin Laden. A well spoken leader with money who wanted to force his views and religion onto the world, and who would love nothing more then to establish an dictatorship with himself as dictator for life.

The discussion of this topic always leads someone to a point similar to:

destroy.all.monsters wrote:That without the rdf - the hope is that the appeal of walled gardens will lessen. Steve's charisma and p.r. acumen was really a driving force of that.

There is an always a tech enthusiast who assumes that A. technical specifications are the only thing that matter, B. since the technical specifications of the given apple product are inferior, then the apple product must be inferior, and C. that for people to buy an inferior product (which often costs more money) they must be "tricked" by marketing. I think all of these are disputable...I also find the implicit assertion that no apple = no walled gardens to be logically suspect as well.

You know, in Korea, even if a person was your enemy, it's customary and common practice to still attend his wake and pay your respects to that person when he/she passes away. All the person's dishonorable acts are forgiven. Very honorable, I might add.

In Korea they also eat dogs. Should I go hunting for my neighbor's pooch for a later bbq too?

By your rationale, all the Jews, Russians, Polish, British, French, Americans and so on should've gone to Hitler's funeral and forgiven him for everything he did to them. Which is the dumbest thing I've heard in last 5 years and I've been around the internets a lot. Granted, Steve Jobs is definitely not Hitler but to scream he is a saint simply because he passed away is silly. He was simply a smart man who saw things in his own way and made a lot of money off of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that but it definitely doesn't make him a saint everyone's trying to portray him to be.

On top of that if you read Stallman's quote he is not glad that Steve is dead per se. He is only happy that Steve won't continue his ways of selling software.

Flatland_Spider wrote:Red Hat, Canonical, and Suse will sell you support licenses.

Which are obviously intended for business enterprise, not home users.

Flatland_Spider wrote:Most Linux, and free stuff, code comes from businesses who pay developers for their work.

Businesses that cater to other businesses. And thus the development largely follows suit.

Flatland_Spider wrote:They aren't any different then Apple, except they believe in open systems, free software, freedom of choice, and they aren't trying to cash in on a buzzword. Ok, so they may be totally different from Apple.

Apple believes in making software/hardware that individual home users actually want to use, not promoting some social cause that is all-but-meaningless to the vast majority of people.

Incredibly, this has worked out rather well for them. Who knew!

Flatland_Spider wrote:Stallman is correct.

Stallman is a publicity-seeking zealot.

Flatland_Spider wrote: Apple is throwback to when software was the fudge and cherry of the banana split and hardware was the ice cream and banana.

I have no idea what that metaphor means, but if you think they're a "throwback" you obviously haven't been paying attention to the market. Apple's vision for the future is trending, not Stallman's.

Flatland_Spider wrote:The core Apple belief is one of vendor lock in. This creates a very well manicured lawn, but it also limits you to Apple's tyrannical vision of the world.

People seem to really like manicured lawns. There is something to be said for them. If that's what they want, who are we to say otherwise?

Flatland_Spider wrote:But, he keeps the FOSS movement on course

No, no he doesn't. People spouting Stallman's zealotry are one of the reasons linux advocacy is so counter-productive. People just want to use computing devices, they're simply not interested in enlisting in some esoteric social cause that is entirely irrelevant to them.

Flatland_Spider wrote:They aren't any different then Apple, except they believe in open systems, free software, freedom of choice, and they aren't trying to cash in on a buzzword. Ok, so they may be totally different from Apple.

Apple believes in making software/hardware that individual home users actually want to use, not promoting some social cause that is all-but-meaningless to the vast majority of people.

Incredibly, this has worked out rather well for them. Who knew!

FOSS is just part of their corporate culture, just like design is part of Apple's. It's not really a social cause with them as much as it's the way they do business. They believe open code and open standards makes their product more valuable then the next product, and they are right. The ability to build off of their base creates incredible value and a vibrant ecosystem.

Apple believes in exploiting other people for it's benefit. Apple opens its code when it's a benefit for them to do so. Not because it adds value, but because they don't want to hire more developers.

Last time I checked, Android and Windows had more market-share, and Apple was resorting to patent trolling to try to protect it's iPhone cash cow. Oddly enough, both Android and Windows are open systems. Not FOSS, and I concede that point, but more open then iOS and OS X.

Openness is working out much better for Microsoft and Google. Open systems win.

Flatland_Spider wrote:Stallman is correct.

Stallman is a publicity-seeking zealot.

He is, but he's still correct.

Flatland_Spider wrote: Apple is throwback to when software was the fudge and cherry of the banana split and hardware was the ice cream and banana.

I have no idea what that metaphor means, but if you think they're a "throwback" you obviously haven't been paying attention to the market. Apple's vision for the future is trending, not Stallman's.

You need to read up on computer history, if you don't know what I'm talking about. In the beginning, every computer manufacturer sold hardware, and they included software for free so the hardware would actually, you know, do something besides take up space. It wasn't until IBM created the Personal Computer and Microsoft started selling DOS for the PC clones that people realized money could be made selling software. From there hardware became a commodity, and software became expensive.

It means you pay for the banana and ice cream, and you get the cherry and fudge for free. What you really wanted was the hardware (banana and ice cream), and you get the software for free (fudge and cherry). You could argue that the fudge and cherry really make the split, but that's not where the cost is.

The vertically integrated computer companies always trend with new technology. Then the technology reaches the general masses, and everything goes back to commodity hardware. Remember the general consumer is price conscious and will buy the cheaper product that is good enough. Look no further then Google and Android for evidence of this cycle repeating. As I said earlier, open systems win.

Flatland_Spider wrote:The core Apple belief is one of vendor lock in. This creates a very well manicured lawn, but it also limits you to Apple's tyrannical vision of the world.

People seem to really like manicured lawns. There is something to be said for them. If that's what they want, who are we to say otherwise?

They do, and that's fine. Some people like the Suburbs and other like the City; to each his own. This is really besides the point. Which is, Apple is a "cool jail", and RMS is correct when he points that out.

Flatland_Spider wrote:But, he keeps the FOSS movement on course

No, no he doesn't. People spouting Stallman's zealotry are one of the reasons linux advocacy is so counter-productive. People just want to use computing devices, they're simply not interested in enlisting in some esoteric social cause that is entirely irrelevant to them.

He does. The FOSS movement with, say, Miguel De Icaza in charge wouldn't be the FOSS movement we know now. It would be a crippled hybrid.

Yes, RMS is crass and ultimately anti-social. That's why the moderates/pragmatists are important. They can put a friendly face on and sell FOSS as a viable alternative, and they know when to push and when to compromise. Hardliners like RMS keep the moderates focused on the ultimate goal of a world where proprietary software and proprietary standards are a thing of the past. Ideologically, RMS' position in the FOSS movement is really not unlike what Jobs' position in Apple was. He constantly pushed Apple and kept it focused.

FOSS is not irrelevant to them. Just because they don't know it's relevant to them doesn't diminish it's importance, and it's up to those who do know to advocate for a better world. It's called being a socially responsible member of society.

FOSS is more then the GPL and Richard M. Stallman. It's about open standards, open systems, and enriching the world by freeing information. We live in a Golden Age of interoperability where it is relatively easy to move our data between systems, and we can thank the FOSS movement for that. Free information and open systems allow people to create even better systems since they don't have to reinvent everything, and they both lower the barrier for companies trying to compete with established players. This is the thing Apple, Microsoft, etc. don't want. They want to keep their information in a silo, and only allow those who pay a toll and those who they deem worthy access to it.

Also, FOSS software goes back to the beginning of the computing, and most of what makes the modern world tick is based on that free code and open standards. That's a little more history for you.

Ok so RMS is pretty staunch when it comes to his views on Free Software. But there is an article where Eric S Raymond goes to bat in defence of Stallman Over Steve Jobs. Apparently the media misquoted him http://www.muktware.com/news/2623

What percentage of Ubuntu home users do you figure actually pay for Canonical's support? I'd bet it is in the low single-digits, if even that. I've certainly never met anyone (IRL or online) who does.

Flatland_Spider wrote:

Glorious wrote:

Flatland_Spider wrote:But, he keeps the FOSS movement on course

No, no he doesn't. People spouting Stallman's zealotry are one of the reasons linux advocacy is so counter-productive. People just want to use computing devices, they're simply not interested in enlisting in some esoteric social cause that is entirely irrelevant to them.

He does. The FOSS movement with, say, Miguel De Icaza in charge wouldn't be the FOSS movement we know now. It would be a crippled hybrid.

I agree that if FSF had been founded by De Icaza instead of Stallman, things would be very different (and not in a good way!) today. But no single individual is "in charge" of the FOSS movement any more. Like the development and distribution model it represents, the concept now resides in the wider FOSS community. IMO Stallman -- while he was certainly the driving force behind the creation of the FOSS movement -- is becoming a liability.

Flatland_Spider wrote:...FOSS is more then the GPL and Richard M. Stallman. It's about open standards, open systems, and enriching the world by freeing information.

Seems to me you're contradicting yourself here.

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson

Dirge wrote:Ok so RMS is pretty staunch when it comes to his views on Free Software. But there is an article where Eric S Raymond goes to bat in defence of Stallman Over Steve Jobs. Apparently the media misquoted him http://www.muktware.com/news/2623

I'm not seeing an explanation of any "misquote" there. ESR basically says he agrees with the substance of Stallman's comments, but not with how they were delivered. If you go to ESR's original post, he says:

ESR wrote:RMS, who is quite like Jobs was in that he’s brutally honest when he’s not mythologizing himself for marketing reasons, has caught a lot of flak for his unsparing take on Jobs’s legacy. Certainly RMS's remarks were rude, intemperate, and ill-timed – so much so that one of his more prominent former supporters has called for forking the FSF as a result.

But, though it’s often been my job in the past to be a peacemaker after RMS has made the open-source community look bad in public, I can’t disagree with the actual substance of what RMS wrote, and I won’t pretend to.

...and IMO Stallman's habit of "[making] the open-source community look bad in public" is why Stallman has become a liability.

Edit: The article linked in the first post of this thread even quotes Stallman's entire Steve Jobs blog post verbatim. So where's the "misquote" this guy is referring to?

The years just pass like trains. I wave, but they don't slow down.-- Steven Wilson